TDH Update: KeyPoint Clash at Council

As of this writing, Item 99, a detailing of the city’s decision to release the KeyPoint report, isn’t even over yet. Council broke some 45 minutes late to receive their noon-scheduled Citizen Communications, and adjourned for executive session afterward (where, coincidentally, Marc Ott’s performance review is the prime topic).

On Item 99, Lee Crawford with the city’s legal department walked council through the background leading up to the investigation, touching extensively on civil service laws – designed to protect officers under suspicion – then the law department’s reasoning to release the report.

According to a slide in his presentation, legal’s understanding, before a supposedly clarifying “memorandum of understanding” between the city and the police union (which union chief Wayne Vincent had intimated was perfectly clear in the first place), was that info related to an ongoing investigation, and about unsubstantiated allegations of officer misconduct could not be publicly released. “At the time the city received the KeyPoint report,” Crawford said, the city was “still over a month out ... from the end of the investigation process.” Now, after the MOU, legal now believes information contained in an independent report can be released.

Crawford also went on the defensive, saying the independent report into Michael Olsen’s fatal shooting of Kevin Brown was held to the same rules as the KeyPoint/Sanders release, but, due to different circumstances, different outcomes resulted – namely Olsen’s being fired, and the allegations of misconduct being substantiated, thereby clearing the way for release.

When Crawford finished, Lee Leffingwell sought to reiterate one of his key points: that “there actually was no difference in the implementation of policy in the Olsen case and the Quintanta case,” but due to the different facts of each case, a dramatically different release pattern followed.

Still, it was clear council still had many unanswered questions. “I think that this case raises some significant policy issues we need to think about as a council,” said Sheryl Cole, issues that “need to be discussed in public … We live in an information age, and the public demands and expends instant information. We as elected officials often feel very compelled to give them that information … But I also realize there is a dichotomy between providing that information and full transparency … with the law.” The conversation then lead to what council can and cannot share from their private executive sessions with legal counsel; Crawford said “my understanding is council members are basically free to talk about information you learn in executive session … nothing in the law that prohibits you from doing that.”

Mike Martinez took umbrage with that. After noting that “the bigger issue here, that somewhat lost their life … for me, the bigger, broader issue is what policy decision do we have to make as a council to keep young black men from getting shot?”Martinez then tore into legal’s newfound zeal for transparency. “I wholeheartedly disagree with what I just heard … For the last four years [we’ve] been told we can’t talk about executive session … The response was you can’t individually waive that right [to attorney/client privilege] – not you as an individual, but maybe as whole.” This new advice, he said, represents “a completely different understanding “ than what Martinez had “the entire time I’ve been on council … Why weren’t we told this last September?” he said, the time of the report’s completion. “It's at a minimum frustrating.” He also raised issue with Crawford’s description of “G-file” material – information related to an ongoing investigation – as unreleasable. The broader point is what makes it a G-file to begin with?” he asked. “It’s a very subjective process we have.”

When council returns: more KeyPoint talk, the fusion center debate, and Ott’s evaluation. Stay tuned …